Ok, you have posed a core statement with regards to an important aspect to art, the development of 'personal growth in an artist work'. Or, to quote your clear statement, "Ok, what do I need to change in my technique to get better reviews of my work."

These is where the conflict exists, that is 'to change in my technique to get better reviews'. This is a position that I suppose contributors of the Hog have in mind when they post work. For myself this is a completely untenable position. I have no intention of altering my position based on the meandering opinions of the personal observations of the general public. It is been proven a poor strategy for modern artist to follow.

Where does an artist receive an informed review of the work some will ask? From other artists and experienced observations from an informed group of viewers. Most of what one receives here is poorly informed rhetoric that is no value. So, to get valued responses one must seek out the wheat from the chaff; and that is what I am looking to garnish.

Changing a technique will have no impact of concepts or ideas that are the primary elements of the work, in point of fact; the technique follows the idea or concept, not the reverse. All to many of the posts on here try to wrap the effort in technique rather than serve an idea. It is why I find myself opening work on the Hog only to quickly close the post, be it an insect, sunset, bird in flight or pretty nude female, all done with excellent lighting, perfect exposure or fabulous location.

When you are confronted with a perfect cliché image, no matter what that image is, one should understand that it is already accomplished, it's been done to death. So you either alter the idea or stop wasting time doing just another record image of what came before.

As a final note, I collect thousands of cliché images of nude women, it is either because there exists some location or twist in the detail that catches my imagination. I often find myself drawn to cartoon renderings that capture my imagination. To illustrate this is a cartoon for the comic charter Louis half in and out of a window. The work of a rogue illustrator that is obviously not the original comic creator. I have been ranging around on Deviant Art for a number of weeks and though I have found other drawings and illustrations of a similar type I have found no photographic work of the sort. What ten is the 'idea' rather the concept that pervades this illustrated idea? Marcel Duchamp asserted a great truth about the two primary senses, hearing and seeing, that was "You can see seeing, you can't hear hearing".

These things can be hidden, but they are vary real in our life experiences. Why do we clink glasses togeather when we drink together (toast or no toast). There are five senses, we see the drink, we taste the drink, we smell the drink, we fell the drink on many different levels, but we do not hear the drink, so we strike the glasses to create the sound of the drink, thus all five senses are involved.

In the cartoon we create a barrier between the two primary senses, that of seeing and hearing. Windows work to seal out sound, they do not seal out sight. This is at base the use of Duchamp's 'You can see seeing, you can't hear hearing'. There are many applications for Duchamp's assertions that were made by him in the span of his working life as an artist. One, the installation of a spigot on the hip of a mannequin, instated in a bookseller's display window, as example. The faucet had water coming out, collected and recycled in a loop of water dispensing. This is a complex idea holding many possible mind processes.

This cartoon illustration has many possibilities. A few are there already and yet many needed to be pushed further to give possible value that as yet is not resolved. This is the real nature of creativity. What is done with the concept(s) will determine the final solutions for this though concepts.

People don't come here for personal growth. If you are doing that, part of your personal growth would be to not visit places like this, and likely anything on the internet. Photos are shown to share their artistic vision to all. Although I don't always like Timmers work, I respect what he does. As some one who holds a fine arts degree (in music) and has collected art for over 35 years, I get it. Occasionally I might suggest ways Timmers could improve his work as I see it, but I would never call him a pornographer.

Our society suffers from our puritan ancestors. For some unknown reason, they have returned in force.